SAS vs WITP

[Rik81]

Not really so much a "vs" question. We already know that the scope of SAS is far greater than that of WITP. Yet, realistically they are covering the same general thing. Also we are aware that these are both "strategic" games, rather than "tactical."

My question is simply to get a little more information on how SAS portrays air and land combats. I've been able to observe the surface combat, which has a very similar look and feel to it as that given in WITP. (SAS is actually a little more interesting in that the ships "move" on your screen.)

How is "air combat" illustrated, as well as "land" in contrast to WITP's method? In the little I've done with SAS so far, it appears that you only get a pure statistical print out of the result. Am I correct?

[Warship NWS]

Also we are aware that these are both "strategic" games, rather than "tactical."



SAS-WW2 is scalable from tactical to strategic.. not just strategic. Just to clarify how the engine works.

Thanks.

[FAdmiral]

When I get my copy of SAS, I will be able to see just how these games compare
as I have played WITP quite a bit....

JIM

[Matto]

I'm playing WitP and mods more then four years (with UV more then six years) ... and I hope, I will love SaS too ;)

[Warship NWS]

Note, this is not intended towards any specific person, only an update to our SAS-WW2 FAQ,



Q: Will you, or allow others to, compare the SAS engine to other possible competing designs?

At NWS we feel that each engine should be judged on its own merits and SAS has its own specific design objectives. NWS Team members will not engage in any direct comparisons out of professional, ethical, and mutual respect for other game publishers. We will only attempt to clarify what the SAS engine has to offer. We also ask that players observe and abide by our forum policies of professional conduct on our forums. Please note, we will not tolerate any sort unprofessional comments or "flame wars" with players trying to compare any possible competing designs. Every player has a right to decide for themselves or have constructive opinions about what they prefer to play or spend their money on.

Forum policies thread (http://forums.navalwarfare.org//showthread.php?t=1)

[Rik81]

SAS-WW2 is scalable from tactical to strategic.. not just strategic. Just to clarify how the engine works.

Thanks.

When I think of "tactical" I think of seeing the ships firing salvoes, seeing the airplanes strafing and/or dropping bombs, see the tanks firing shells.

At what level do the planes and "land based units (soldiers/artillery/tanks, etc.)" perform in SAS?

I understand we are getting action down to an hour by hour basis here, which is very much a "tactical" feel, no doubt about it. But what gets "illustrated"? Surely you know in WITP, when a turn is shown that involves air strikes on shipping, we see planes and cap planes firing at each other?

I've got the game, so I'm not looking to be sold, rather I am looking to "sell" it to a friend who is enamoured with WITP.

[Warship NWS]

Not to sound short as my time is terribly limited today.. but the PDF media packs should give a pretty good feel of the tactical level of combat and combat resolution included in SAS-WW2.

The SAS engine is more of a commanding admirals point of view of the overall campaign covering from strategic to tactical levels of command so it is not intended to show planes buzzing around, subs looking through periscopes, standing on the deck of a ship, etc. ;) SAS is very much a thinking armchair admirals type of engine designed to keep you focused on the war in front of you and to allow for quick access, and assistance, to the critical decisions behind your overall course of action. There are replays, reports, etc.. of tactical combat resolution that can be accessed after each game turn.

Let me know if that helps.

[Scott Chisholm]

Not really so much a "vs" question. We already know that the scope of SAS is far greater than that of WITP. Yet, realistically they are covering the same general thing. Also we are aware that these are both "strategic" games, rather than "tactical."

My question is simply to get a little more information on how SAS portrays air and land combats. I've been able to observe the surface combat, which has a very similar look and feel to it as that given in WITP. (SAS is actually a little more interesting in that the ships "move" on your screen.)

How is "air combat" illustrated, as well as "land" in contrast to WITP's method? In the little I've done with SAS so far, it appears that you only get a pure statistical print out of the result. Am I correct?

Rik,

Only surface engagements result in an animated replay; submarine, air and land engagements result in static after action reports.

The game was designed that way with malice of forethought. Put simply, there are considerably fewer surface engagements than any other type of engagement in the game; and, since the game is a naval simulation, the decision was made to focus on that aspect.

I'm straying into Tony's area here, but I think I can explain (as I understand it) some of the decision making here....

There are a LOT of submarine and air engagements in the game. Providing an animated replay for each one would have slowed the game down to a crawl while consuming an obscene amount of memory.

For instance: If you play the Atlantic campaign and simply rubber stamp the 2ICs decisions as the Brits, you should see something like 3 surface engagments, 25 submarine engagements and 1 air engagement in the first month (setting Strategic and Operational turn lengths to 1 month each). Allow 3 hours per surface engagments (a very conservative number), one hour per submarine engagement, and 30 minutes for the air engagement, and you manage to accrue 28.5 hours of combat. That results in (28.5 hours)*(60 minutes/hour)=1710 minutes of combat. At 1 second/minute time compression during the replay, that equates to 28.5 minutes of animated battle replays for that one turn. As those replays are after the fact (vice "real time"), the second-by-second, shell-by-shell replay data would have to be retained until the conclusion of the turn.

During playtesting, the Med scenario Tony presented us had a minimum average of 6-10 air strikes PER DAY! Over a course of a month...you're looking at ~250 airstrikes, which turns into around 2 hours of animated replay. Now, add in the surface engagments (one of mine lasted 26 hours!) and the gazillion submarine encounters we had in that scenario...yowzer.

It's too much. After the first 20-30 minutes of replays, your eyes would glaze over and you'd probably just skip the replays and all of the effort put into creating them would be wasted.

So, the decision was made to focus on the surface engagements and make them really good. I think Tony did a great job. :D

[Scott Chisholm]

When I think of "tactical" I think of seeing the ships firing salvoes, seeing the airplanes strafing and/or dropping bombs, see the tanks firing shells.

At what level do the planes and "land based units (soldiers/artillery/tanks, etc.)" perform in SAS?

I understand we are getting action down to an hour by hour basis here, which is very much a "tactical" feel, no doubt about it. But what gets "illustrated"? Surely you know in WITP, when a turn is shown that involves air strikes on shipping, we see planes and cap planes firing at each other?

I've got the game, so I'm not looking to be sold, rather I am looking to "sell" it to a friend who is enamoured with WITP.

Rik,

I'm trying to take some of the load off of Chris here....

The "feel" of SAS is that you're the Top Dog In Charge; that's why the main screen is called the Admiral's Office. You do the intellectual heavy lifting and send your minions off to execute your grand plans. At designated intervals, they report back to you on the status of their taskings via your Turn Briefing Reports.

As you have very serious Admiral Things to contemplate, you are assigned a gofer - your 2IC - to keep the minions in line. Through the various game settings (strategy selection, tactical responses, etc), the ship/aircraft builders, the infrastructure/R&D screens, and the mission editor, you have the ability to come down from your mountain and "get your hands dirty" tactically. But, it's still up to the individual Commanding Officers to execute their missions - the Admiral can't be everywhere and surely doesn't have time to hold everyone's hands....

The game turns are calcualted hour-by-hour, but the surface combats are calcualted shell-by-shell. Hopefully, my other post went toward explaining why surface combat is the only one that gets a play-by-play replay.

I hope that helps!

[Rik81]

That explains it well. Thank you.

If my memory (which ain't like it used to be) serves, there is something in the pipeline to wed SAS with a tactical game engine, such as the reverse was done in the case of the Fighting Steel project. Is that correct?

[Warship NWS]

That explains it well. Thank you.

If my memory (which ain't like it used to be) serves, there is something in the pipeline to wed SAS with a tactical game engine, such as the reverse was done in the case of the Fighting Steel project. Is that correct?

Yes, our plans are to allow for a compatibility option for surface combat resolution using WC:NAW later this year. Thanks.

[Christian Schwietzke]

Note, this is not intended towards any specific person, only an update to our SAS-WW2 FAQ,

Does this include thing like my "WitP is a limousine, SAS is a pickup" comparison - or advice like "if you want extreme amounts of details you´re probably better off with WitP, but if you want the "what if?" aspect to extend beyond the military operations themselves, you´re probably better off with SAS" sort of advice?

WitP and SAS are very different approaches to the same thing; I understand that you do not want "my game is better than your game" arguments, but that FAQ entry could be read as a gag order.

Basically, if somebody comes here (or to the Matrixgames forum) saying he´s torn between buying WitP and SAS, is it okay to point out the differences between the two games, as long as it is not done to disparage one game and praise the other?

[Warship NWS]

To Chaos.. the policy is not meant to be a "gag order", it is meant to keep the conversations professional.

I have no problem with constructive opinions as players try to determine what their purchasing priorities are. It's all a simple matter of asking everyone to act mature and responsible and to show mutual respect for the publishers, and players, involved in the context.


is it okay to point out the differences between the two games, as long as it is not done to disparage one game and praise the other

I have no problem with this.. and your "not done to disparage" comment is well stated.

Thanks.